Home

Summary of the Discussion on Ethics and Privacy and ALN

by Sloan-C

The following summary is a brief overview of the topics in ALNTalk from June 16 to July 2, 1997.

I. Introduction

The "gee whiz" of ALN technology quickly captures our attention--we can send each other pictures of ourselves, transmit corrected papers, graphs, exercises, real time chat, and more...and more. Technological developments seem to follow a pattern--developing the "acceptable" or "understood" ethical practices lags well behind new tools.

For instance, take the cellular telephone. Is it OK to tape a telephone conversation that you stumble onto? 1. Should you talk on a cell phone while dining in a restaurant? 2. Should you bring your cell phone to a tennis match? Society is still grappling with these issues.

Likewise, in these early years of ALN (asynchronous learning networks), we are slowly trying to find consensus on ethical practices. What should we be doing? Should we focus on the handicapped learner? The poor student who cannot afford the latest technology? Or should we cater to the best and wealthiest, and use all the speed and power of our computers and networks to explore the limits? These are some of the questions we explored during the first, and I hope not the last, forum on ethics and privacy issues of ALN. In the end, we should commit ourselves to follow a strong ethical and professional standard.

II. An A in typing, an F in interpersonal skills?

The initial question was: What is lost and what is gained when students do not come to campus, do not meet face-to-face, and only interact via computer? The respondents found many positive aspects of online learning, including an expanded intimacy between instructor and student.

Skip Knox sent one extremely positive report:

• ...There is simply no contest. Even with a small live class of 20 or so, there is simply no way to let everyone in class talk ideas over at length, even assuming everyone would. In the virtual class, where I require a minimum of three messages a week, everyone benefits from everyone else as well as from whatever I have to offer.

  Teaching virtually feels much closer to real teaching. It's direct, personal, and it creates among the students a strong sense of common enterprise. Lecturing to halls of 60 is a poor cousin, at best.

James Salsman challenged us to think of our obligation to the students--perhaps we are unethical if we fail to prepare our students for the real world: "The only general rubric which I can remember is that it is better to involve people early on in the kinds of social situations in which they are likely to find themselves later on." If our students will be coping with an online world, then we must teach them the best ways to learn, work, and behave in that environment.

To underscore this point, this thread ended with these words by Carey T. Campbell: "I wonder if it is now time to ask not how ALN is affecting communication skills but what makes for effective ALN communication?"

III. Robbing from Peter to pay Paul

Are we replacing faculty with machines? Will we let our roofs leak and our walls crumble in order to pay for more and more technology and technology support people? Is it ethical to lessen the resources for on-campus students in order to cater to off-campus students? For example, do on-campus students have fewer choices because resources are being siphoned off to computers, technicians, wiring, and the like?

Those questions provoked many posts. Olin Campbell wrote that only faculty who cannot compete on an open market will lose their jobs: "Faculty are not going to be replaced by machines, but may be replaced by better qualified authors and coaches in a competitive environment that ALN makes possible." Lanny Arvan mentioned the benefits of spreading low-enrollment, "boutique" courses across several campuses, thus cutting down the more obscure "mini-courses" of 4-12 students.

Ray Wilson summed up the issue when he wrote:

• While the new didactic methodologies might be a threat to the overall numbers of TENURED faculty, they certainly will not reduce the numbers of teachers required. In fact, since students previously not reached can now be served, there may well be MORE opportunities for teachers. In my view, the real threat is to INSTITUTIONS that are not part of this new instructional wave, and to resistant or mediocre faculty. Schools and faculty who can produce quality on-line course work will prosper. The rest of the world has long had to respond to changing technologies and competitive challenges; I suppose it's appropriate that educational institutions and teachers are no longer immune.

The following article may be of interest:

This illustration makes one stop to think: I got my degree through email.

The focus in this thread quickly turned to the different tuitions charged for in-state and out-of-state students, with several points of view on what is the fair way to charge for ALN. Quite obviously, schools are pouring resources into ALN in order to stay competitive--change is here and we cannot put the lid on Pandora's box.

Iv. The Criminal Mind/Cheating

How about assignments where students cut and paste materials from web pages? How do you teach students what is right and what is wrong? What guidelines do we use?

Olin Campbell posted the provocative thought: "It seems that it should be easy to cheat in an asynchronous learning network (ALN) where people are identified only by their "name" and e-mail address. It would be easy to have someone else take online exams for you, and even to do your assignments." John Sener wrote: "Also, FYI, here is a discussion of techniques for controlling online cheating and a second discussion on preventing cheating which you might find worth looking at..."

Carolyn Gale proposed that the answer might be in stating policies, "..it will be up to each school to create and enforce guidelines for an 'ALN Honor Code'."

John Sener posted a summary of a DEOS-L (The Distance Education Online Symposium Listserv) discussion on cheating, including student attitudes toward cheating on tests, methods of preventing cheating, and methods of cheating.

George Blakeslee added, "I think that ALN courses will need to build in some personal contact expectations, in person or via telephone. This would make cheating of the "stand in" sort - using ghost writers and test takers - harder to accomplish."

Basically, in my own view, if we are to do our jobs as teachers of the whole student, we must be true educators, teaching our students to know right from wrong, ethical from unethical, legal from illegal, or we aren't doing our jobs.

Skip Knox posted a thought to underscore that viewpoint:

• I regard this as an opportunity to teach about plagiarism. Many of us have worked so long according to scholarly ethics, we are surprised to find not everyone shares our view. What would be blatant intellectual dishonesty in a colleague is often no more than a simple human desire to cut corners in a student. Our job -- well, my self-imposed job, anyway -- is to teach the values of the profession, and to let the student know that plagiarism is not just laziness, it's plain cheating and will not be tolerated. I've seen very few students who are determined to cheat the system, and most will mend their ways if given the opportunity.

V. Privacy--Student, Teacher, Class

Who can have access to an online class discussion? Do you tell the students when outsiders are reading? Do you show transcripts of class discussions to people at conferences?

Here is an ethical policy for handling class privacy by George Blakeslee:

In my online courses at Lesley College the specific course web pages are placed behind password protection once the class begins. I believe that students are entitled to the same expectation of privacy that is created by a physical classroom.

I would feel that I need all the student's approval to permit a guest to "visit" the course site because unlike face-to-face discussion, all the foregoing conversation is "frozen" in place on the discussion forum.

As to using discussion forum transcripts at conferences and in papers, I would see no harm as long as students identities were not included, and as long as specific name, place, etc. references in the transcripts were removed. This information is going to be needed as the field develops and models of success and failure are sought.

Scott Keiffer added, "Speaking from the point of view as a student in an ALN format, there are few things more disturbing than learning 'secure' material has been distributed to others without permission being asked or granted."

For ideas about policies for your school, see A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Electronic Learners http://w3.scale.uiuc.edu/scale/rights.html.

As a teacher, you might want to be very "up front" with your students on what your policies are, and be very clear about the issues listed above. Why not open a dialogue with your students? Mirtha Vaca asked, "Has anyone asked their students if they have any concern using ALN for their coursework? Do they have any fear others may use their information as their own? How well do they use the system? Do you find students are still more comfortable with a hard copy of their test/paper. in their hand? If anyone has gotten a chance to speak to students, I would be intrigued to hear what they are saying."

VI. Publishers perish?

A shift is occurring in who is going to make profits from education. Obviously, computer manufacturers will, but how about software manufacturers--will they gain at the expense of publishers? What are the processes for insuring excellence? Will the spoils go to those who are less rigorous in their standards for educational excellence? Is it harder to judge software quality than book quality?

This thread generated little excitement.

James Salsman proposed that the distinctions between software publishers and printed matter publishers will become much less apparent. "It's already difficult to find one which is not the other." Salsman thought that "the most entertaining media for most people are not the most instructional, and it will take a lot of hard work to get to the point where they are." As for the processes for insuring excellence, they will be handled by "Standards committees, such as the ETS, as well as independent innovators and a healthy communication between the two. The goal of education needs to be the highest goal in the minds of those responsible for education."

Susanna Priest commented:

There is another piece here that's missing. Perhaps it is just a perceptual issue, but I never feel guilty buying books, and I think it's because (if I buy from a decent publisher) I believe I am supporting things I believe in: scholarship, attention to education, etc. If I buy software, I am much less sure that I am doing anything with my money other than lining an investor's pockets. Of course both are for-profit enterprises in the end, but I do believe the corporate cultures of each are radically different. So it's not just a question of producing (or identifying) quality software, at least to me.

VII. The Ethics of Access

We all want universal access to ALN, and none of us wants to pay for it. Thus the question: Is it ethical to require students to use computers for homework, tests, texts, etc. when students do not have equal and easy access?

Tweed Ross summed up the current situation: "As it appears now, many colleges opt for a middle ground; enough access that if you are patient you can find a place in the computer lab; but really handy if you have your own."

UT Austin is wrestling with the issues--Michael Daecher reported that "about half of our students have the necessary tools (fast modem, reliable connection, know-how) to take online courses. We do not offer anything online that isn't available to the non-computer literate student. Universal computer access for distance education is not achievable in the near future. Recognizing this, we must develop our courses with both clients in mind."

However, catering to the two different kinds of students holds the progress back. "If we stay the course and avoid offending those without computer access, our online course development will suffer."

Eric Master pointed out that:

• "Most colleges have computer labs so students who do not have computers can have access to on-line material and other computer resources. On the other hand, traditional courses require students to buy hundreds of dollars worth of text books every semester. What if students can not afford these textbooks? I have not heard of libraries that have stock piles of current textbooks for students to use. As for copy centers, they are reluctant to copy textbooks because of copyright laws.

  My point is that on-line courses may be more accessible then traditional courses because of the wide spread use of computer centers at colleges."

VIII. Summary: The Force and the Darkside

As mentioned at the onset of the summary, ALN is new, and the ethical practices that will be part of ALN are not yet codified or widely understood. Today you probably could ask a distance education lab technician or an ALN support person for a chance to look at a "live" online course, and that person would give you access without giving it a second thought. The students would feel betrayed, of course, but they probably will never know. Is that OK? Should we be educating our faculty and staff about the ethics and privacy of ALN? Obviously, we had better be thinking of these issues if we want to maintain the respect and integrity of our enterprise.

Murray Turoff wrote, in his paper Alternative Futures for Distance Learning: The Force and the Darkside (http://eies.njit.edu/~turoff/Papers/darkaln.html), "While there are desirable futures possible it is becoming evident that many current practices and related economic forces can result in a future that is quite analogous to the 'darkside' of the force."

If you are curious about ethics, technology, policies, and advice, check out the David Vance and Arun Rai reference, complete with Herman Tavani's bibliography, Computer Ethics - Cyberethics
http://www.siu.edu/departments/coba/mgmt/iswnet/isethics/index.html.

Another rich source for guidelines: IEEE CODE OF ETHICS
http://www.ieee.org/committee/ethics

While reading the code, note these points:

5. to improve understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential consequences (Turoff article)

8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin (equal and easy access issues).